4 ms·

Regardless of how one characterizes the magnitude of the changes, if the unanticipated difficulties had been handled openly, there would be no question of crimi

Regardless of how one characterizes the magnitude of the changes, if the unanticipated difficulties had been handled openly, there would be no question of criminal liability. Furthermore (though it is also beside the point), physics has not ruled out the MAXes. In addition, the door-plug issue is tied in here on account of the 2021 deferred prosecution agreement, which also followed from Boeing's duplicity over the MAX issue.

Retric 2y ago
> Regardless of how one characterizes the magnitude of the changes, if the unanticipated difficulties had been handled openly, there would be no question of criminal liability You’re skipping over the first half of my statement. If the unexpected difficulties had been handled openly they would have needed to go through more regulatory hurdles. Physics didn’t put them into some kind of catch 22 situation the aircraft could have been safe, it just couldn’t be safe while playing games with regulators. That’s where criminal liability shows up.
- mannykannot 2y ago
  As far as I can tell, I'm just skipping over the issues which may be true, but are beside the point, but then, it is not clear to me which statement's first half you think I am skipping over. The point I have been making all along is that, regardless of what led Boeing to the point of choosing to hide or misrepresent the situation, it is the choice to do so that turns this into a potentially criminal matter. With the same physical/technical problems but proper and timely disclosure of the issues during development, by far the most likely outcome would have been a delayed program delivering MAXes substantially similar (in both construction and operation) to the ones which are certified and flying today. After that, even in the unlikely event that the crashes had occurred, criminal prosecution would be unlikely, and certainly not on the basis of the facts for which it is currently being considered.
  - Retric 2y ago
    > are besides the point Except they aren’t beside the point. > substantially similar (in both construction and operation) The physical aircraft would have been similar, but airlines would have spent 10’s of millions more on training which makes a real difference to them and thus sales. Boeing could have released the aircraft on exactly the same date while complying with the spirit of relevant relations though at higher costs, but the product would have been meaningfully worse from a sales perspective. Even today regulators have allowed Boeing and the airlines to treat the 737 MAX family as much more closely related to earlier 737’s than they actually are.
    - mannykannot 2y ago
      All of these things are beside the point here because none of them form the basis on which criminal proceedings are being considered by the DOJ. Without the information hiding and misrepresentation, there is no basis, regardless of either the physics or the economics of the issue. In addition, even if it is true that regulators have now allowed Boeing and the airlines to treat the 737 MAX family as much more closely related to earlier 737’s than they actually are, this is not the basis of the DOJ's investigation, either.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Criminal proceedings in the US care about motives. It would be vastly harder to bring a case like this if there weren’t incentives to ack as they did. Regulators aren’t at issue, but trying to avoid regulatory scrutiny is. Or as is often said it’s the coverup that they get you for.
        mannykannot 2y ago
        The motives were there regardless of how Boeing chose to act. It's the chosen act that is potentially criminal. The DOJ is not in any doubt as to whether or not Boeing had a motive, and it is not considering at all the question of whether regulators have now allowed Boeing and the airlines to treat the 737 MAX family as much more closely related to earlier 737’s than they actually are, regardless of any parties' motives in that regard.

Retric 2y ago

> Regardless of how one characterizes the magnitude of the changes, if the unanticipated difficulties had been handled openly, there would be no question of criminal liability You’re skipping over the first half of my statement. If the unexpected difficulties had been handled openly they would have needed to go through more regulatory hurdles. Physics didn’t put them into some kind of catch 22 situation the aircraft could have been safe, it just couldn’t be safe while playing games with regulators. That’s where criminal liability shows up.

mannykannot 2y ago
As far as I can tell, I'm just skipping over the issues which may be true, but are beside the point, but then, it is not clear to me which statement's first half you think I am skipping over. The point I have been making all along is that, regardless of what led Boeing to the point of choosing to hide or misrepresent the situation, it is the choice to do so that turns this into a potentially criminal matter. With the same physical/technical problems but proper and timely disclosure of the issues during development, by far the most likely outcome would have been a delayed program delivering MAXes substantially similar (in both construction and operation) to the ones which are certified and flying today. After that, even in the unlikely event that the crashes had occurred, criminal prosecution would be unlikely, and certainly not on the basis of the facts for which it is currently being considered.
- Retric 2y ago
  > are besides the point Except they aren’t beside the point. > substantially similar (in both construction and operation) The physical aircraft would have been similar, but airlines would have spent 10’s of millions more on training which makes a real difference to them and thus sales. Boeing could have released the aircraft on exactly the same date while complying with the spirit of relevant relations though at higher costs, but the product would have been meaningfully worse from a sales perspective. Even today regulators have allowed Boeing and the airlines to treat the 737 MAX family as much more closely related to earlier 737’s than they actually are.
  - mannykannot 2y ago
    All of these things are beside the point here because none of them form the basis on which criminal proceedings are being considered by the DOJ. Without the information hiding and misrepresentation, there is no basis, regardless of either the physics or the economics of the issue. In addition, even if it is true that regulators have now allowed Boeing and the airlines to treat the 737 MAX family as much more closely related to earlier 737’s than they actually are, this is not the basis of the DOJ's investigation, either.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Criminal proceedings in the US care about motives. It would be vastly harder to bring a case like this if there weren’t incentives to ack as they did. Regulators aren’t at issue, but trying to avoid regulatory scrutiny is. Or as is often said it’s the coverup that they get you for.
      - mannykannot 2y ago
        The motives were there regardless of how Boeing chose to act. It's the chosen act that is potentially criminal. The DOJ is not in any doubt as to whether or not Boeing had a motive, and it is not considering at all the question of whether regulators have now allowed Boeing and the airlines to treat the 737 MAX family as much more closely related to earlier 737’s than they actually are, regardless of any parties' motives in that regard.